http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/books/15wallace.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
it took me a few days to decide if i had anything worth writing about this. ultimately, i decided: sort of. i never knew the man. i used to make up reasons to go visit the english building so i could pass the open door to his office and casually glance in, giving a head-nod if eye contact was made, but i never had a real conversation with him. i made a comment about tennis in passing once, but that's it. that's all.
i take a lot of pride in knowing he read a story of mine once, though. i wrote it about him. i'm not sure if he knew that or not, but i did. it was in application for his advanced fiction class; i wrote about how if you have large breasts no one will ever see you for anything different. that in any public place, once those breasts are noticed, that's what you'll be seen for/as. it's not to be taken seriously.
for someone who's work i'm not all that familiar with (i've read many individual stories and essays, and the first 300 pages of ij at least 4 times, but no more), i do a lot of writing about him. i think it's because a great deal of the fiction i've been writing recently has come immediately after reading something of his. he inspires. saunders, feig, delillo, and he are the only four writers i can say that of of late.
for someone who's work i'm not all that familiar with (i've read many individual stories and essays, and the first 300 pages of ij at least 4 times, but no more), i do a lot of writing about him. i think it's because a great deal of the fiction i've been writing recently has come immediately after reading something of his. he inspires. saunders, feig, delillo, and he are the only four writers i can say that of of late.
i don't know where i'm going with all of this; i'm really just getting thoughts out. the newsweek memorial talks about reading his work in retrospect, looking for clues. that upsets me. that shouldn't happen.
i rarely get upset about a death, even that of someone close to me. i think evan put it best, although i'm paraphrasing and somewhat re-interpreting here: his suicide was presumably quite logically thought out. this gives too much validity to depressing thoughts. it doesn't bode well for the world.
it's also possible that this is not the case. it's possible that his decision had nothing to do with the world outside of him, and that it says nothing about the way someone with his propensity for logic and clear thought would see the world through my eyes. it's very possible that it is that very same logic and clear thought that made this world unbearable, and not the other way around. it's possible his problems were internal, not external. or maybe my stupidity--or my unwillingness--is my salvation (i have a feeling this is the case.)
it's also possible that this is not the case. it's possible that his decision had nothing to do with the world outside of him, and that it says nothing about the way someone with his propensity for logic and clear thought would see the world through my eyes. it's very possible that it is that very same logic and clear thought that made this world unbearable, and not the other way around. it's possible his problems were internal, not external. or maybe my stupidity--or my unwillingness--is my salvation (i have a feeling this is the case.)
rip, dave wallace. you will be missed.
http://www.marginalia.org/dfw_kenyon_commencement.html
